Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-vpsfw Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-21T00:35:54.108Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Cranberry response to sulfentrazone rate, timing, and application volume

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 March 2021

Thierry E. Besançon Open the ORCID record for Thierry E. Besançon [Opens in a new window] ,
Katherine M. Ghantous Open the ORCID record for Katherine M. Ghantous [Opens in a new window]  and
Hilary A. Sandler Open the ORCID record for Hilary A. Sandler [Opens in a new window]
Thierry E. Besançon*
Affiliation:
Assistant Extension Specialist, Philip E. Marucci Center for Blueberry and Cranberry Research, Chatsworth, NJ, USA
Katherine M. Ghantous
Affiliation:
Research Associate, University of Massachusetts-Amherst Cranberry Station, East Wareham, MA, USA
Hilary A. Sandler
Affiliation:
Extension Associate Professor, University of Massachusetts-Amherst Cranberry Station, East Wareham, MA, USA
*
Author for Correspondence: Thierry Besançon, Assistant Extension Specialist, Marucci Center for Blueberry and Cranberry Research, 125a Lake Oswego Road, Chatsworth, NJ08019 Email: thierry.besancon@rutgers.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The recent registration of sulfentrazone, a selective, soil-applied, PRE herbicide labeled for control of various weeds in cranberry, expanded the number of modes of action that could be used in the crop. A 2018 preliminary study in Massachusetts showed that high rates of sulfentrazone applied at the cabbage head stage reduced the number of flowering uprights (vertical stems) without impacting the final yield. To clarify the use patterns needed to promote crop safety when using sulfentrazone, six studies were conducted in New Jersey and Massachusetts in 2019 and 2020. Studies compared sulfentrazone applications made at two timings (spring dormant, SD; or cabbage head [CH] stage), two rates (280 and 420 g ai ha−1), and three application volumes simulating either chemigation (3,740 L ha−1) or boom application (190 L ha−1 alone or followed by 0.25 cm water wash-off). Boom application studies in New Jersey in 2018 and 2019 did not show significant long-lasting injury (necrosis or stunting). However, a comprehensive observation of cranberry uprights 8 wk after treatment showed a high rate of terminal bud necrosis, a reduction in the number of reproductive structures, and the development of axillary shoots associated with a high rate of sulfentrazone applied at CH. A mitigation study conducted in 2019 and 2020 confirmed the safety of chemigated sulfentrazone at the high rate with no yield reduction, regardless of crop stage at application. Washing off the herbicide from the cranberry canopy immediately after boom application did prevent the necrosis of terminal bud and the related development of nonproductive secondary shoots. Considering the results of this study, application of sulfentrazone over the top of cranberry vine before scales of the terminal bud start loosening would be prudent practice at this time.

Keywords

SulfentrazonecranberryVaccinium macrocarpon Aitchemigationbroadcast applicationboom application
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 35 , Issue 4 , August 2021 , pp. 574 - 581
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Weed Science Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Associate Editor: Peter J. Dittmar, University of Florida

References

Anonymous (2012) Zeus XC Herbicide. FMC Corporation. http://www.cdms.net/ldat/ldBND004.pdf. Accessed: April 20, 2020Google Scholar
Bailey, WA, Wilson, HP, Hines, TE (2002) Response of potato (Solanum tuberosum) and selected weeds to sulfentrazone. Weed Technol 16:651–658 10.1614/0890-037X(2002)016[0651:ROPSTA]2.0.CO;2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bailey, WA, Hatzios, KK, Bradley, KW, Wilson, HP (2003) Absorption, translocation, and metabolism of sulfentrazone in potato and selected weed species. Weed Sci 51:32–36 10.1614/0043-1745(2003)051[0032:ATAMOS]2.0.CO;2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Besançon, TE, Hemstead, R, Jensen, T, Carr, BL (2018) On-Going Research on New Preemergence Herbicide for Cranberry. Page 4 in Proceedings of the 2018 Annual Summer Meeting of the American Cranberry Growers Association. Chatsworth, NJ: Rutgers New Jersey Agricultural Experiment StationGoogle Scholar
Cape Cod Cranberry Growers Association (2020) Request for proposals-Horticultural and environmental research priorities. Plymouth, MA: CCCGA Research Committee. 6 pGoogle Scholar
Carmer, SG, Nyquist, WE, Walker, WM (1989) Least significant differences for combined analyses of experiments with two- or three-factor treatment designs. Agron J 81:665–672 10.2134/agronj1989.00021962008100040021xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carr, BL, Besançon, TE (2019) Cranberry response to rate and application timing with flumioxazin and sulfentrazone. Page 24 in Proceedings of the 4th Annual Meeting of the Northeastern Plant, Pest, and Soils Conference. Hunt Valley, MD: Northeastern Weed Science SocietyGoogle Scholar
Collins, KB, McNeil, RE, Weston, LA (2001) Evaluation of sulfentrazone for weed control and phytotoxicity in field-grown landscape plants. J Environ Hort 19:189–194 Google Scholar
Dayan, FE, Weete, JD, Hancock, HG (1996) Physiological basis for differential sensitivity to sulfentrazone by sicklepod (Senna obtusifolia) and coffee senna (Cassia occidentalis). Weed Sci 44:12–17 10.1017/S0043174500093486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dayan, FE, Weete, JD, Duke, SO, Hancock, HG (1997) Soybean (Glycine max) cultivar differences in response to sulfentrazone. Weed Sci 45:634–641 Google Scholar
Eck, P (1990) The American Cranberry. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. 420 p Google Scholar
Ferrell, JA, Witt, WW, Vencill, WK (2003) Sulfentrazone absorption by plant roots increases as soil or solution pH decreases. Weed Sci 51:826–830 10.1614/P2002-149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frans, R, Talbert, R, Marx, D, Crowley, H (1986) Experimental design and techniques for measuring and analyzing plant responses to weed control practices. Pages 37–38 in Camper ND, ed. Research Methods in Weed Science. Champaign, IL: Southern Weed Science SocietyGoogle Scholar
Ghantous, KM, Sandler, HA, Kerrester, W (2019) Moss: Biology, diversity, and yield impacts on cranberry. https://scholarworks.umass.edu/cranberry_facsheets/44. Accessed: June 21, 2020Google Scholar
Ghantous, KM (2020) Managing moss in cranberry beds. Page 11 in Proceedings of the 2020 Annual Winter Meeting of the American Cranberry Growers Association. Bordentown, NJ: Rutgers New Jersey Agricultural Experiment StationGoogle Scholar
Grafen, A, Hails, R, eds. (2002) Modern Statistics for the Life Sciences. Oxford and New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 409 p Google Scholar
Grey, TL, Bridges, DC, Brecke, BJ (2000) Response of seven peanut (Arachis hypogaea) cultivars to sulfentrazone. Weed Technol 14:51–56 10.1614/0890-037X(2000)014[0051:ROSPAH]2.0.CO;2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grey, TL, Walker, RH, Wehtje, GR, Hancock, HG (1997) Sulfentrazone adsorption and mobility as affected by soil and pH. Weed Sci 45:733–738 Google Scholar
Hutchinson, PJS, Boydston, RA, Ransom, CV, Tonks, DJ, Beutler, BR (2005) Potato variety tolerance to flumioxazin and sulfentrazone. Weed Technol 19:683–696 10.1614/WT-04-221R.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ohmes, GA, Mueller, TC (2007) Sulfentrazone adsorption and mobility in surface soil of the Southern United States. Weed Technol 21:796–800 10.1614/WT-06-185.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polter, SB, Scheerens, JC, Doohan, D (2004) Tolerance of greenhouse-grown strawberries to terbacil as influenced by cultivar, plant growth stage, application rate, application site and simulated postapplication irrigation. HortTechnology 14:223–229 10.21273/HORTTECH.14.2.0223CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polter, SB, Scheerens, JC, Doohan, D (2005) The effect of irrigation on terbacil tolerance in field-grown strawberry. HortTechnology 15:560–564 10.21273/HORTTECH.15.3.0560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandler, HA (2018) Weed management in cranberries: A historical perspective and a look to the future. Agriculture 8:138 10.3390/agriculture8090138CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sandler, HA, Ghantous, KM (2018) Cranberry Research Report 2018: Defining new approaches to weed management in cranberry. https://scholarworks.umass.edu/cranberry_research_repts/22/. Accessed: January 8, 2021Google Scholar
Sandler, HA, Ghantous, KM (2019) Cranberry Research Report 2019: Defining new approaches to weed management in cranberry. https://scholarworks.umass.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1022&context=cranberry_research_repts. Accessed: July 17, 2020Google Scholar
Sandler, HA, Dalbec, L, Ghantous, KM (2015a) Identification Guide for Weeds in Cranberries. Quebec: Centre de reference en agriculture et agroalimantaire du Quebec (CRAAQ). 293 pGoogle Scholar
Sandler, HA, Ghantous, KM, Hedderig, C (2015b) Poverty grass fact sheet. http://scholarworks.umass.edu/cranberry_factsheets/36. Accessed: June 21, 2020Google Scholar
Shaner, DL, ed. (2014) Herbicide Handbook, 10th ed. Lawrence, KS: Weed Science Society of America. 513 pGoogle Scholar
Shear, CL (1916) False blossom of the cultivated cranberry. Washington, DC: USDA Bulletin No. 444. 8 p10.5962/bhl.title.109280CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sumner, HR, Dowler, CC, Garvey, PM (2000) Application of agrichemicals by chemigation, pivot-attached sprayer systems, and conventional sprayers. Appl Eng Agric 16:103–107 10.13031/2013.5063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swantek, JM, Sneller, CH, Oliver, LR (1998) Evaluation of soybean injury from sulfentrazone and inheritance of tolerance. Weed Sci 46:271–277 10.1017/S0043174500090524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Szmigielski, AM, Schoenau, JJ, Johnson, EN, Holm, FA, Sapsford, KL, Liu, J (2009) Development of laboratory bioassay and effect of soil properties on sulfentrazone phytotoxicity in soil. Weed Technol 23:486–491 10.1614/WT-08-122.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor-Lovell, S, Wax, LM, Nelson, R (2001) Phytotoxic response and yield of soybean (Glycine max) varieties treated with sulfentrazone or flumioxazin. Weed Technol 15:95–102 10.1614/0890-037X(2001)015[0095:PRAYOS]2.0.CO;2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, WE, Troxler, SC, Smith, WD, Fisher, LR, Wilcut, JW (2005) Uptake, translocation, and metabolism of sulfentrazone in peanut, prickly sida (Sida spinosa), and pitted morningglory (Ipomoea lacunosa). Weed Sci 53:446–450 10.1614/WS-04-085R2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[USDA-NASS] U.S. Department of Agriculture–National Agricultural Statistics Service (2019) Cranberry statistics. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/New_Jersey/Publications/Cranberry_Statistics/index.php. Accessed: 14 March 2020Google Scholar
[USDA-NRCS] U.S. Department Agriculture–Natural Resources Conservation Service (2020a) SoilWeb, University of California-Davis. https://casoilresource.lawr.ucdavis.edu/gmap/. Accessed: July 12, 2020Google Scholar
[USDA-NRCS] U.S. Department Agriculture–Natural Resources Conservation Service (2020b) Web Soil Survey. https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm. Accessed: July 17, 2020Google Scholar